Are you saying that it was impossible to be in this country illegally at the time? It sounds like you are.
There would have been no reason to even have the 14th worded in any other way than to just say that anyone born in the U.S. would be immediately citizens. No reason at all for the wording it has.
I have heard it over and over on the Jan Michealson show on WHO radio that the guy that penned the thing spoke and wrote about how it would not apply to the children of foreign citizens who happened to be in the USA when they were born.
We don’t need a new law, we need to follow the current one.
There were no restrictions on immigration prior to the ones I outlined. At the time 14A was passed, there were no illegal aliens.
The interpretation of the “subject to the jurisdiction” clause of 14A accepted by the Supremes in 1898 was that it referred to those excluded from jus solis by common law. Which basically were diplomats and their families and members of invading armies.
Wong did not specifically address children of illegal aliens, as Wong was the child of legal residents. Until quite recent decades there weren’t enough illegal aliens in the country for the citizenship of their children to be a big deal.